Not Less Education, But More of the Right Sort. ST 3ST By W. A. Candle. , D.D., LL.D. Nashville, Tenn.: Printed by Barbee & Smitn, Agents. Not Less Education, but More of the Right Sort. Some years ago the Emperor William of Germany de- clared that there was too much education among the Emperor William Germans - and Prof. Peck Somewhat to the same purpo8e is on Too Much a recent utterance of Prof. Harry Education. Thurston Peck, of Columbia Univer- sity. Writing upon the defects of "Modern Education," he deprecates the idea, " almost universal among our peo- ple, that education in itself and for all human beings is a good and thoroughly desirable possession." Contend- ing that this idea is fraught with "social and political peril," he says: "Education means ambition, and ambi- tion means discontent. . We see on every hand great masses of men stirred by a vague dissatisfaction with their lot, their brains addled and confused by doc- trine that is only half the truth and vaguely understood, yet thoroughly adapted to make them ripe for the work of the agitator and the enemy of public order. , Such education as these possess can never qualify for any serious role; it only makes for grievous disappoint- ment and a final heart-break. Nor is there any moral safeguard in a, limited degree of education. Quite the contrary. It only makes the naturally criminal person far more dangerous, converting the potential sneak-thief into the actual forger and embezzler, and the barroom brawler into the anarchist bomb-thrower. Statistics lately sent to Congress in a veto message show the fact t it in our prisons the proportion of the fairly educated 4 Not Le§s Education, but More of the Bight Sort. to. .the -uneducated is, far larger than among an equal number of ordinary citizens." The Kaiser and the Professor agree that education, to be safe and useful, must be confined to the few, and igno- rance must rest on the masses. As the Romanists be- lieve concerning the Bible that it is not to be trusted in the hands of the vulgar herd, so these hierarchs of cul- ture would reserve education to an aristocracy, lest the common people be blasted and blighted by too much light. If their conclusions were sound, it would still be of no value. It comes too late. The common people of Chris- Kaisers and t en d° m nave tco much education to be Illuminati content with less. They will demand and Can Not receive more. No decrees of Kaisers nor Confine wails of illuminati will avail to keep knowl- Knowledge. edge from them. Romauistic views with regard to both education and religion are spent forces. Education may be a Pandora's box from which, curiosity having opened, all blessings have irrecoverably escaped, hope alone being left to men; but the deed is done, and, truth to speak, the masses of men do not regret the open- ing of the box, whatever may be the results. Men do not care to live in a paradise if it is to be a " Paradise of Pools." And yet there is truth in the conclusion of the Bm- R t Th peror William and Prof. Peck. A man Can Be or a na '' on mav nave too much education Excess of by having the wrong sort of education, a Certain Sir Archibald Alison, the author of the Sort of « History of Europe During the French Education. Revolution," noting the increase of deprav- ity with the spread of knowledge in Prance, said: "It Not Less Education, but More of the Right Sort. 5 is not simply knowledge, it is knowledge detached from religion, that produces this fatal result. . The reason of its corrupting tendency in morals is evident — when so detached it multiplies the desires and passions of the heart without an increase to its regulating prin- ciples; it augments the attacking forces without strength- ening the resisting powers, and thence the disorder and license it spreads through society. The invariable char- acteristic of a declining and corrupt state of society is a progressive increase in the force of passion and a pro- gressive decline in the influence of duty." Doubtless throughout the United States — throughout Christendom — during the century now nearing its close, there has been too much education of the sort which " multiplies the desires and passions of the heart with- Multiplied out ai1 increase to its regulating principles," Desires which augments the forces which attack vir- Need a tue without strengthening thepowers which Regulating" resist evil, and thereby much disorder and P license have been engendered. Hence the belief of many wise and good people that our civili- zation is marked by the characteristic feature of a " de- clining and corrupt state of society" — "a progressive increase of the force of passion and progressive decline in the influence of duty." When were men more pas- sionately tenacious of their rights and more indifferent to their duties? When wae the idea of liberty more warmly asserted and the idea of self-sacrifice more tep- idly accepted? But the remedy is not less knowledge, but nobler knowledge; not less education, but a higher kind. A poultice of ignorance will not draw out the dangerous inflammations which afflict and imperil the social system, 6 Not Less Education, but More of the Right Sort. evei The even if the patient # were disposed to submit to its ap- plication. The cure will be found, if found ■o , at all, in Christian culture. Christendom must choose between the education which casts down every high thing which " exalteth itself against the knowledge of God " and brings " into cap- tivity every thought to the ohedience of Christ," and the education which imparts simply the knowledge which " puffeth up " and which results in that anarchic wisdom which knowB not God and loves not man. And this choice can not be long delayed. Sometimes one fears the American people have al- ready made choice, preferring secular to Christian learn- ing. The common schools, being institutions of the state, are necessarily neutral in religion. So also are the thir- ty-four state universities. The state can Questions no i an8wer an y f the following questions r ■$ 'J which are fundamental to our religion : Has Answer ® oc ' mat ' e a revelation; and if so, is it found in the Bible? Who was Christ? Was the work of Martin Luther and his companions the work of reformers restoring the true faith, or the misdoings of renegades destroying tbafe faith? Besides the state schools, there are many secular in- stitutions founded by individuals. The greatest gifts to colleges and universities yet made in Nor Can Private America have been by men who have Foundations preferred to propagate secular rather Christian than Christian culture. Witness the gifts made and institutions founded by such men as Stephen Girard and Leland Stanford. Are men of the world willing to put more money into Not Less Education, but More of the Bight Sort. 7 their unbeliefs than Christian men are willing to put into their beliefs? There is one cheering sign. If the Christian colleges of the United States are not the richest, they are the most numerous and influential. Christian colleges hold about seventy-five per cent of all the college instructors and college students in the country. No Church in America undertakes to get along with- out its own colleges, except a Cuckoo sect which accom- plishes the same end by occupying as far as it is able institutions originally founded by other Churches. The people called Methodists have from the first founded schools, and to-day in the num- anrl 9rhnnk ^ er °^ ^ ne ' r educational institutions they lead all other denominations in the Uni- ted States. The birth year of Methodism was 1789, and in that year John Wesley laid the corner-stone of the Kingswood school. From that institution came Adam Clarke — in himself fruit enough to justify its planting. In 1784 American Methodism was organized at the Christmas Conference in Baltimore, and at that Confer- ence steps were taken to establish Cokesbury College. The General Conference of 1796 introduced into the Book of Discipline "a plan of education recommended to all our seminaries of learning." It is Smifrht in evident the schools of the Church had so 1796 multiplied during the twelve j 7 ears which had elapsed from the projection of Cokes- bury — the years of poverty and hardship which fol- lowed the War of Revolution — as to require some uni- form system or "plan." The same General Conference deprecated " the separation of the two greatest orna- ments of intelligent beings: deep learning and genuine 8 Not Less Education, but More of the Eight Sort. piety." Every General Conference from 1796 to 1894 has avowed, the educational function of the Church and insisted on its vigorous exercise. Mr. Wesley and his followers, in undertaking the work of education, brought no innovation into the Church of God, nor did they propose a temporary Ihe (jliurcn expedient to meet the passing needs of from It" an 'g noran t class from which they had Foundation, gathered followers. From the very ear- liest times the Church has engaged in the work of education. In the schools of the primitive Church the most illustrious of the Fathers saw service. The Sixth General Council at Constantinople directed the presbyters to establish schools in all towns and villages. Has the Church followed a folly through the centu- ries? Has a work been undertaken which might as well _ . . _ have been left to other hands? Was Mr. Schools of w , , ,, . „ . .. „ Weslevan Wesley, whose "genius for organization, Methodists ^ nas Deen said, "was equal to that of Richelieu," laying upon his poor followers an unnecessary burden when he established the Kings- wood school? Have all the General Conferences for a century repeated his blunder by enjoining upon the Methodists educational tasks required by no necessity of the Church, no duty to the world, and no principle of the gospel? Are the eight hundred and seventy-five day-schools of the Wesleyan Methodists in England, with all their colleges and theological institutions, mon- uments to sectarian bigotry and pride? Are the sixty- five Methodist colleges in the United States, not to speak of our two hundred Methodist schools for secondary in- struction, the product of priestcraft and the instruments of partisanship? Not Less Education, but More of the Right Sort. 9 What would ,be the effect on our civilization if all these schools were closed? AVhat Suppose We Close w be our condition to d if or Had Never Had , , , ._ J T L Our Schools they had never been opened? .Let men who decry them consider these questions. Let Christian men who neglect them reflect upon these things. Not to maintain these schools suitably is much the same as closing them. If the schools of the Church re- main weak and poor while secular in- Insufficient stitutions are being strengthened and Maintenance enriched, Christian education will be Abandonment ^ rst belittled, an d then abandoned. It is no good sign of the times that the Leland Stanford University, with its scoffing head, is richer than all the Christian colleges west of the Missis- sippi River combined. Thus entrenched, no wonder its President rails at denominational colleges through the columns of the Popular Science Monthly, while all the hosts of the secularists rejoice and the Philistines shout their applause. If this work of Christian education can be done as well by any other agent as by the Church, if the state or private persons can do it as well, let The Ghuren the Church come out of it She has pIen _ the Issue " ^ to ^° ^^-t nobody else can do. Let her sell her educational plants and put the money in Foreign Missions, for example. But, if, on the contrary, no one can do the work of Christian education as well as the Church, if no one can impart the spiritual quality to education by which alone it can be saved from becoming a malign and dangerous force, let the Church be up and about this urgent busi- 1* 10 Not Less Education, but More of the Eight Sort. ness. It is a matter»which can not wait. Tho secular forces are not waiting, and unchristian education means ruin to both Church and State. Very little is too much of it. Christian men must thoroughly equip genuinely Chris- tian institutions. This will require much money in a country in which unchristian schools (not to say anti- christian) count their possessions by millions and their incomes by hundreds of thousands. All the schools of the Church must be in fact, as in name, genuinely Christian. This matter is too great and too grave to be trifled with. There is no room here for shams. The Church must not permit any institution not genuinely Christian to live upon its treasury and fatten upon its patronage. For a school GraveMaTter. to wear the Rarb of the Church that it may secure the gifts of the conse- crated is a species of Simony far worse than all sins of secularism. For the Church to allow such a sin in its name is to approve the crime of getting money under, false pretenses, and wink at an offense as profane as the gluttony and covetousness of Hophni and Phinehas. Every one of our schools must be able to stand up and in the name of the Lord give a Christian's account of itself when men demand of it " What do you more than others?" The times call for Christian culture, not eccle- siastical establishments. Long as the Church has neglected her duty by delay «r, i n, • i- about this great and urgent interest, What Christian ,, ..... . ■ , ,, . Men Have in there is time yet to retrieve much that Their Purses. nas Deen l 08 * an( J save all that is now imperiled. The great common-school system can be saved from secularism by pouring through Not Less Education, but More of the Eight Sort. 11 all its veins and arteries the religious influences of our Christian colleges if we will only make these colleges strong enough. Christian men have it in their power (in their purses) to make our colleges thus strong. The young life of the republic to-day lies in the lap of the Church. Will she dare say to any T d Sa secular agent whatsoever: " Take this child and nurse it for me ? " It is this the Lord says to her. It is a high trust. It can not be delegated to another without disobedience to her King. President E. Benjamin Andrews, of Brown University, on " Denominational vs. State Colleges." During the "seventies" certain "educational reformers," connected with State colleges, took upon themselves the task of decrying, that they might destroy, the denominational colleges of the country. For these be- neficent institutions they proposed that higher education by the State be substituted. Pending the controversy, which they carried into the news- papers and the magazines, Dr. E. Benjamin Andrews, at present the distin- guished head of Brown University, was inaugurated President of Denison University in Ohio, December 21, 1875. President Andrews, in view of the pending debate, chose for the subject of his inaugural address " Denomina- tional vs. State Colleges." His masterly argument for Christian colleges has never been successfully answered, and its conclusions so strongly con- firm and enforce the views presented in the foregoing pages that the writer of this pamphlet has made liberal extracts from Dr. Andrews' inaugural, and appends them here. The entire address, if carefully studied, would in- struct the foes and edify the friends of our Christian colleges. After a graceful exordium, and a clear statement of the question, Dr. Andrews pro- ceeded to say: I beEieve that governmental management of higher education is, in America, impracticable in fact, and every- where wrong in principle. These two things I shall seek to show in their order, viewing the subject first as it regards policy or the question what can be done, and then as it regards principle or the question what ought to be done. To proceed, then: State control of liberal education is incompatible with our republican condi- Incompatible tions Tne ex jg enc j e8 f a f re e and gen- P Li- erous government, the refuge of oppressed Form of ones from every clime — refuge where the Government, very air rusts off every shackle, as well of thought as of limb — the exigencies of such a government force us, whether we will or not, to de- Denominational vs. State Colleges. 13 pend on private corporations for liberal school training. Religionists must have their seminaries of learning, and freethinkers theirs, if they want them. A state system, the very best you can devise, will fail. For one thing, such a system would work unbear- able hardship. If government assumes charge of our public instruction, what will it do with An Unbearable such colleges as already exist? To sup- Hardship upon ,, ,,,,,,. . Relip-ionq press them, or to frustrate their pri- p e0D | e _ mary design by converting them into state concerns neutral in religion — a course gravely proposed by some — would be monstrously wrong. The men who laid these foundations did so with the express purpose and condition that upon them learn- ing and religion should hold eternal alliance. Those who support them now are moved to such sacrifice by the conscientious conviction of duty to God. They believe a divinely arranged harmony to subsist be- tween learning and religion, between the culture ot the mind and the culture of the heart. Men who feel thus would regard it a sin, having it in their power, not to furnish the means to their own chil- dren, and to all others willing to profit by them, ot cultivating philosophy, literature, and science, in closest connection with Christian faith. I am not now argu- ing that these people are right in their views of duty and propriety, but only that they are very conscientious A strong sense of duty to God impels them to provide and to sustain Christian colleges, and it would be religious in- tolerance, unparalleled at least in American history, to deny them that privilege. Who can believe that the people will ever allow government to undertake so vio- lent a measure ? 14 Denominational vs. State Colleges. Very few, of course, Lave any such wild dream. All these schools, the most of the agitators tell us, will, to be „ . sure, be suffered to continue in their pres- nf Annrlipr en * character. Then, are the supporters j£j n| j of them to be taxed like other citizens to build and furnish with fuel the educa- tional engines of the state? Here would be a hardship of another kind- — not so grievous as the first, still too real and palpable to make it likely even to be imposed upon us. It requires vast sums of money to set up and equip good colleges, and whatever it costs the con- sciences of Christ's followers will prompt them to pro- vide. We may depend upon it that, however large the expense, unless suppressed by law, there are going to be noble and fully equipped Christian universities in this land, not supported out of the public purse; and unless it can be shown that costly state universities besides, erected and maintained by taxation, are absolutely in- dispensable to the life of our republic, it will be unfair in the extreme to lay upon Christian shoulders the gratuitous second burden of helping to support these. To be sure we tax Catholics for common schools, but we do it because such schools are necessary to our life as a nation. It would be cruelly wrong to do this on any other plea. So it would to do it merely as a " hopeful experiment," for fear that common ignorance might be harmful. We tax the whole people for lower education, because the deadliness of popular ignorance to> popular government is certain, as certain as a wide induction of historical instances can make it. But can anyone soberly argue that liberal intellectual culture, such as colleges and universities are designed to give, holds any such intimate relation to the life of the Denominational vs. State Colleges. 15 government? Such a view could not be defended by the shadow of evidence. Writers fall into P .. strange misconceptions on this point. Be- not Like cause liberal culture is necessary to the the Common sovereign welfare and perfection of a people, Sehools, it is alleged to be vital to the state. The Necessary to two things are plainly distinct. Eeligion, the Lite 01 an( j t jj e Christian religion too, is essential the Nation. . , , , „ -d, , „ to a people s supreme weal. " Blessed, in the highest sense, " is that nation " alone " whose God is Jehovah." But a state, a government, can exist with- out the people's being all, or any of them, Christians. Common morality is enough; and so, for this other ne- cessity, common intelligence among the masses is all that really must be had. And such intelligence it is the sacred duty of good government, for the sake of its own conservation, to secure, by an efficient system of com- mon schools, with compulsory attendance; and firstater- normal schools for the adequate training of teachers. I do not say that higher culture would be of no advantage to our republic. It would, by making the people better and easier to govern. So would universal piety; but the government can do without either; it can endure though every college and university die. But such institutions will not die. As we have seen, unless put down by law, seminaries of learning are sure to flourish. True, they may not do their Doubling the wor t to the satisfaction of all; but while Burdens of th Btand even snou id their effective- Good Men. ' , . ,, ness never be any greater than now, American .intellectual life will continue, and no plea for state colleges, on the ground of their being vital to the government, can present the remotest sem- 16 Denominational vs. State Colleges. blance of propriety. . Hence, to double the educa- tional burden that good men must carry, by making them help support unnecessary institutions, that they can not patronize, and do not believe in, would be the ex- treme of injustice. Whether the now existing colleges be swept away, or perverted to non-religious uses, or left as they are, the erection and support by general tax- ation of new institutions of this character would be a grievous wrong to a large and worthy portion of the American public. We may safely depend upon the sense of justice in the people at large to forbid such a proceeding. I argue next that the general public is not competent to have the charge of higher education. The case is not with us as with Germany, whence our Filter Polities educational iconoclasts get their notions, and Are There'bv ^ nere * ne sovereign power is central, Hampered. and, fortunately or unfortunately, views * of government prevail different from those which find favor here. The minister of educa- tion there is not as directly responsible to the peo- ple as such a functionary would be in the United States. He can give direction to that interest accord- ing to his own intelligent will. On this side of the Atlantic, the people, if they supply the funds for ad- vanced learning, must direct the expenditure of the same. In other words, state colleges must be in politics, and be subject to all the vicissitudes of politics. You can not set them upon any career of certain permanent progress. You can not keep them under any fixed and definite policy. Some stubborn and ignorant Legislature will be sure, sooner or later, to overturn the plans of the wisest educators. A timid Legislature, frightened by the Denominational vs. State Colleges. 17 people's cry of too heavy taxation, will withhold the funds absolutely needful for proper college work. Is it said that this danger is only theoretical? Look at the history of state efforts in the direction of higher educa- tion. In how many instances have educational funds been squandered by reckless legislators ! In how many cases have the people, in some moment of frenzy for re- trenchment, most harmfully reduced the teaching force of a high school, or curtailed salaries beyond the possi- bility of retaining good teachers, or in some other way equally insane broken hopelessly in pieces an educa- tional policy of long standing and exceeding worth ! How have political complications, from the very first, crippled the work of Girard College, and rendered that magnificent foundation almost profitless to those for whom it was laid! Take the University of Michigan, even. Is she beyond the reach of harm from popular ignorance and intractableness? One may almost say that she stands in jeopardy every hour. The people elect the Regents directly, and nothing is to prevent them, at any time, from filling that office with incompetent men, and pledging them to a policy that shall be fatal to the legitimate activity of that noble seat of learning. In at least one instance already, according to Prof. Ten Brook's history, has that university tottered on the very brink of ruin through the people's interference. Nov is the possibility of such meddling confined to pecuniary measures alone. It is at the option of the polls to-day to exclude Greek from all the high schools in that state, as has already been done in Detroit. Suppose that this exclusion of Greek be made general, and that Latin shares the Bame fate with Greek; or that the Supreme Court by and by reverse its old decision, and ordain that 18 Denominational vs. State Colleges. the people nead not be taxed for the support of high schools at all? Will not the university be hampered in her work? s^^^sic^^^^ In view of these facts, I say it is quite unlikely that in this land, where people are so impatient of taxation, state institutions will ever be pecuniarily Christian a8 we ]i eare( } f or as the truly representa- tolieges t j ve Qnes amon g those supported by Chris- Certain of ^ an wea ltb.- And it is still more certain Support. that the state concerns will not, in the long run, do their work any better than the others. President White argues as if denominational colleges, by making up their faculties for the most part out of Christian men, excluded all truly accomplished and thoroughgoing professors from their chairs. He brings forward in illustration of this infelicity the fact that Brown University was, of late, some time without a head, when "there were scholars, jurists, and statesmen *in that commonwealth who would have done honor to the position." But did that college lose anyfhing by in- sisting that her President must be a Christian and a Baptist? No one can say so who has had the least ac- quaintance with the present incumbent of that office. There is not a state university in America that would not count itself happy to secure him for President. The fact is that the great denominations are not poor in dis- tinguished savants and thinkers. If any colleges have taken up with inferior teaching talent from the mere necessity of employing Christian instructors, they have been inexcusably stupid. Christian colleges are, then, sure, on the whole, to stand equal with any in the respects of endowment and professorial ability. There is another item in which they Denominational vs. State Colleges. 19 can not but be superior: It is in the Christian conscien- tiousness with which their instruc- Conscientiousness tio ° f" be S iven ' . That P™»P*«" of Their Work. w ° ' °ks upon his pupils as im- mortal beings — who feels that his teaching will be potent with results everlastingly blessed, both to the learners themselves and to an unnumbered ulterior public whom they will influence — that preceptor, I submit, can not help being, on the whole, superior in zeal, assiduity, and impressiveness to one who instructs, in considerable part, to dis- play his own attainments, ridicules theistic ideas, and regards the intellects that he is fashioning as only the momentary scintillations of the great " all," destined, after a few breaths, to go out in darkness. . . As a last consideration against the feasibility of state higher education, I urge the religious complication which it would involve. Christian men are jealous of their faith. Others are equally earnest that nothing shall oppose the State ^ ree course °f unbelief. High education Colleges must have to do with religion, and I do Can Not not believe that a great state institution of Impart liberal learning can maintain any attitude Religious toward religion that will not so exasperate instruction. some p ar ty or' other as to make trouble at the ballot-box. President White speaks of this problem as already " wrought out; " but, in fact, we are only just beginning to confront it. Till of late, Christian think- ing has been overwhelmingly predominant in our coun- try. It is so no longer. Anti-Christians are numbered by the millions, and the practise of paying state moneys for the inculcation of theistic and Christian notions, de- pend upon it, will not much longer remain unchallenged. 20 Denominational vs. State Colleges. The point to consfder here is not that these two or three millions who reject Christianity have rights, but that they have ballots, and that their prejudices against true theism are as forcible as those of Christians in favor of the same. Now the instructions of a numerous and learned fac- „ , ,. ulty must be either theistic or non-theistic, Education J , ' beyond the or P ar "y oue an( * P ar tly the other. There Rudiments is no realm of thought above the merest ru- Raises diments, such as are taught in common Religious schools, where you can avoid hearing the Questions. obtrusive echoes of the great controversy re- garding theism and religion. Is the study ethics? You must decide upon an ultimate basis of right. Is it psy- chology? Declare whether or not thought is a secretion of the brain. Is it metaphysics? Tell me what is the authority of the causal judgment. Is it history? I ask whether there is a philosophy of history. Is it science? I must know whether matter and force are ultimate things in human thought. Education can not be neutral on these issues without belittling itself to the character of drivel. It simply can not be neutral, however hard it may try. Suppose, first, that each professor presents bis subject from a theistic standpoint — the ethical doc- tor finding morality intuitive, and its ultimate rule God's will; the occupant of the metaphysical chair teaching that the conception of law implies a person; and so on with all the others? Will not the great multitude of Jews, freethinkers, atheists, pantheists, and the rest, find fault when taxes are called for to sustain such in- struction? Let the overturnings which these people have already wrought in the old order of things be our reply. Unbelievers have the ballot as well as Christians. That is the stubborn fact of the matter; and whether we Denominational vs. State Colleges. 21 deplore it or not, they will never consent to pay their money for the promulgation of Christian ideas. But suppose them to be in the majority, and to fill the chairs of the state university with unbelieving doctors — What John Fisk at the head, teaching metaphysics Would the* and ethics after Bain, Spencer, and Mill ; Infidels John C. Draper and Youmans dividing nat- ^° * ural science between them; prelections upon history delivered by a disciple of Buckle; and Auguste Compte redevivus, dean of all the faculties. Is it likely that Christian men will submit to paying taxes for such instruction? !Now it is not beyond belief that, should the govern- ment enter the domain of higher education, both these Mosaip embroglios might, in different states, be- Faeulties come part of history within half a century, and Not, however, while your system of state Bewildered colleges is new. At the outset it would be Students. imperative to conciliate all parties by com- pounding boards of instruction out of all sects and be- liefs. Every faculty must be a religious mosaic. All at- titudes to religion must be represented in it, in order that none may predominate. And now see the result. In studying the classics the pupil is taught by contrast the superiority of theistic and Christian potions of life. In physics, the very foundations of Christianity, and of theism too, are gnawed away by the cankerous doctrines that matter and force are ultimate, and that man is a developed brute, a mere automaton. In one study the student is taught that induction rests on in- tuition; in another, that intuition is itself a product of induction; in ethics, that man is free and responsible; in history and political economy, that man is only a ma- 22 Denominational vs. State Colleges. chine— nay, that nis being a machine ia the very reason why the sciences of history and political economy are possible. But who wants youthful minds trained in this most mischievous way? Such teaching would uproot in them the very idea of truth, and there are as yet none quite so radical as not to regard that a nlisfortune. Such misnamed education would offend believers and un- believers alike, and a system of it could never be perma- nently supported by general taxation. Perhaps people are very foolish. That, I repeat, is not the question now. The point is, that people vote. We have committed our- selves to a republic, with its blessings and its ills. If the consignment of higher education to private hands is an ill, we must abide it. Bight or wrong, wise or foolish , the great body of citizens will never, till the millennium at least, so agree in religion as to allow higher intellec- tual training to be administered by government. But I said that to put higher education into political hands is not only impracticable, but also wrong in prin- . ciple; and to this second point I request you p . p * now to attend. Denominational higher edu- cation, or higher education on private foun- dations, will prevail in our land, because the people will see that this, and this alone, is right. What is the business of the state? Is its function unlimited? May it do whatever a majority says it may do? Are ma- jorities infallible? Are there not some things which even they have no right to do? It is high time that the attention of legislators was held to such queries as these. Much of our lawmaking is shockingly reckless of mi- nority rights, and regardless of principles in general. If a measure will only pass, that fact, according to the reg- nant political philosophy of our time, is proof positive of Denominational vs. State Colleges. 23 its Tightness. I believe that many advocates of state higher education are carried sheer away by the bril- liancy and grandeur of the plan, not thinking or caring, perhaps, to ask whether there is legitimacy in it; in- quiring only if it is possible. I am aware, however, that the abler pleaders for state establishments are careful to advance their grounds, and they generally affirm that the state must furnish this high culture in order to live. But for this, as I have said, they furnish not the remotest vestige of proof. I have sought for proof through all their-writings to which I have had access, but to no avail. When we regard the number of great men, educators, jurists, lawmakers, statesmen, editors, and writers, who have glorified our history without any college breeding, it is vain to deny that the government might survive and fulfil successfully all its real functions, though every college and university from Maine to Cali- fornia were razed level with the ground. Nor is the re- lation of colleges to common schools at all more essential. The normal school, and not the college, is the proper complement to the common school. And normal schools it is the duty of the state to furnish. It is not true that the state will die without seeing to higher education. Just here there is a chance for an argumentum ad homi- nem. As observed already, government may abide without If State Christianity, or high learning either. Of Colleges ^he ^ w0 5 however, Christianity is infinitely Why Not the nearer to its life; for Christianity is a State now practically the only religion offerable Church and to men, and no state ever yet endured a state [ on g w ;thout religion, while many have stood centuries with low intellectual cul- ture. Here, then, is religion with some appearance, at 24: Denominational vs. State Colleges. least, of being vital to governmental stability. Here is higher education with confessedly less of such appear- ance. The reformers would deny the government's right to take charge of religion. They urge it to take charge of higher education. Their position is illogical. The government's attitude toward religion in this country is right, and it ought to hold the same attitude toward all those other such matters, which, though important enough to the highest weal of the people, and remotely so, perhaps, even to the nation's very existence, are, after all, not vital to the nation's existence. ***** But it is not the function of the government to busy itself about the compassing of such ends as these. Its function is to protect the people in the exercise of their natural rights. It transcends its sphere in putting hand to every scheme that can in any way advantage the people. It is none of the government's business how high or low a degree of literary culture the people pos- sess, or what the nation's literary reputation is abroad, or to further discoveries in science, or to see to it that our national intelligence does not lag behind that of the age. Leave these things to individuals and to private societies, moved by their own tastes and convictions and by the spirit of the times. Education in this higher aspect of it is too sacred a thing for the state to touch with its great, coarse, hard hands. Turn it over to those who have affinity for it, and will cultivate and foster it out of love. It is the only way in which learning can flourish in a republic like ours, and it leaves the govern- ment free to perform its only legitimate work: protect- ing the people in their natural rights. This is one reason why I pronounce state meddling with higher education wrong, because this interest Denominational vs. State Colleges. 25 ie utterly outside of the government's legitimate ac- tivity. Another point deserves to be considered. Religion is essential to the perfection of culture and intelligence, and the state can not teach religion. If the ine State p e0 pig are unable to attain the desirable de- j v velopment without culture — and I am as Religion earnest as any living man in maintaining that they are — then it is of prime conse- quence that their culture be of the choicest kind, and to be this it must have the religious element. That the state can not impart this religious element so indispen sable to true culture is generally admitted, but the full breadth and bearing of the admission is not so generally understood. The government must be strictly, scrupu- lously, impartial in religion. So says the constitution of the United States. So also says precedent, extending back over half a century of our national history; and so, better than all, says the only true, abstract, theory of statecraft. Disciples of Mohammed, of Confucius, of Buddha, devotees of every pagan cult, are as true citi- zens as Christians are. They are not to be tolerated on condition of conforming to all the Christian observ- ances which we please to impose, but to be accorded their own inalienable, God-given right of practising re- ligion as they see fit. It follows from this principle not only that the state may not teach Christianity as such, but that it may not even teach morality on Christian grounds. The farthest it can legitimately go in any re- ligious direction is to inculcate those common ideas of morality in which all agree, steadfastly refusing to de- cide upon their grounds. Should the state in its public instructions go beyond this, and found morality in the 26 Denominational vs. State Colleges. nature or in the will of Gfod, it would discriminate against a large class of citizens who do not so believe, and who have rights as well as Christians have. Often it is argued as if the government were not bound to rospect the religious views of such, but only to be neutral among the various sects of Christians. In reality, however, it is as criminally intolerant to discriminate against idol- aters in favor of monotheists, as it would be to discrim- inate against Methodists in favor of Baptists. A man's creed has nothing whatever to do with his status as a citizen according to the American theory of govern- ment, and so instruction given by the state can not go beyond the simplest unsupported elements of morality without invading some citizen's rights. The state laboring under such a restriction can not The State be * ne provider of the best intellectual pab- Can Not ulum; it can not furnish the inspiration Furnish needful for the highest intellectual attain- the tfest ments. Religion must be invoked ; and „fi .. the only religion worth invoking is Chris- tianity. Christianity is the native ally of intelligence. That Christian men should ever oppose intellectual progress, or that real unbelievers should ever attain preeminence in the same, are both very strange and anomalous facts. That they are facts, I will not deny; but they are ab- normal, the outcome of peculiar conditions. Genuine and unadulterated Christianity cheers when science ad- vances its standards. History presents to us the religion of the cross marching at the very head and front of the world's educational forces. Civilization has never seen the like of it, in power, first, of creating in men a men- tal appetite, and then of filling their hungry minds with Denominational vs. State Colleges. 27 the most nutritious intellectual food. It is surprising and instructive to observe how soon the early Christians outstripped their pagan relatives and neighbors in the intellectual race. A love of letters seemed to be born in them at the same time with their faith. That whole age was one of research, of light. Nor did this light grow dim till Christianity became corrupted and the genuine preacher found a grave. The renaissance came with the preacher's resurrection. Even the infidel historian will tell you that intellectual quickening, as well as spiritual, waited upon the minis- tries of St. Francis and St. Dominic, and Tauler, and Huss, and Luther. Luther is remembered with as much honor to-day in his character of father to free thought as he is in that of religious reformer. Rationalists, as well as Christians, love him. And with reason. To no other one man is Germany so much indebted for her present intellectual preeminence as to him ; and it is well known that his bias in favor of active thought was the outcome of his faith. Nor is his influence, as a promoter of think- ing, strange. Any man filled with the true spirit of the Christian religion will be a freethinker in the better sense of the term; a lover of the truth, a searcher after it, an advocate of progress in thinking and knowledge. So of nations. It is the nations where Christianity has been least disseminated, where the preacher's voice has been longest and oftenest hushed, which have re- mained most backward mentally. Compare Germany with Italy, England with Spain, the United States with South America. The same is seen in heathen lands. No sooner have the seeds of religious truth sprung up there than those people raise ;i clamor for schools. China and Japan in the same instant open their ears 28 Denominational vs. State Colleges. to hear the gospel, «nd their mouths to cry to Christian lands for teachers. It is not accidental that the great re- positories of learning the world over are of religious origin, and that scarcely a single broad and deep educa- tional foundation has been laid in Christendom except by the hands of Christian piety. And it is still worthier of remark, that it has been Christian people, stirred up by their faith to appreciate learning, who have demanded these institutions, and whose sons have filled them when erected. sfc-fc ^ ^^^sf^c It is not religion alone that has occasion to weep over the monistic tendencies of these times. Literature, phi- losophy, art — all culture, are equally concerned. Let the belief gain general prevalence that Learning there is no spiritual world, no living God, P no immortality, and those who will then re- on Religion gard intellectual attainment worth its cost will be few indeed. Eeligion will not de- part from this world alone. When you compose her form in death, prepare tears for other objects of love, many and dear. Art, literature, culture, and religion have taken oath to die and be buried as they have lived, locked in each other's arms. I need not pursue this thought. I protest against divorcing education from religion. They are the proper complements of each other. To education Complements without religion that dignified title does Each Other no * De kmff' It is the form without the power. A state system of education, into which religion can not enter, is wrong in principle. It deserves as little the support of those who are interested in the intellectual as of those who are interested in the religious welfare of the people. Denominational vs. State Colleges. 29 But, if secular education can not adequately form the mind, still less — and this is my last reason for calling it wrong in theory — can it yield character. The T ne principle is general, but its application N A ftti * 8 especially striking in our own land and American ^ me - ^ strong moral character is the deep- People. est neec * of the American people to-day; and every one knows that the intellectual class has a mighty power in fixing the character of society at large. The religious tone of our college teach- ing is almost as important in this regard as that of our preaching itself. If the great mass of our American college graduates can go forth to their life-work, each possessed of an iron moral principle begotten and ma- tured in four years of theistic teaching, the power of these institutions for moral good will pass all reckoning. They will be to our people like perpetual smiles from on high. If the same amount of intelligence enters public life, purely secular, with only such ideas of morals as it can imbibe with the state for its preceptor, it can hardly avoid being a curse. Thus far, college instruction, with its pronounced theistic bent, has stood in the front rank of agencies for conserving and advancing morality. We can not spare so salubrious an influence now. " We are seeing enough of the ill that results from secularism in the common schools. It is the painful conviction, I be- lieve, of every morally thoughtful man that these schools are not producers of high character. Theoret- ically the Catholics are right, that even here education should not be non-religious. Government, however, be- ing indispensable, and these schools being indispensable to government, and it being impossible in a free republic for them to teach religion, the theory must suffer, and 30 Denominational vs. State Colleges. we must do our beat to preserve the symmetry of lower education by diligent Sunday-school and home instruction. But a further divorce between education and religion is not necessary, and should be fought turtner against to the last. Besides the minor in- Education felicities always arising from a weak state an( j of the public conscience, there are sev- Religion eral towering evils which torment us now, Unnecessary that can only be remedied by » better a ™ moral sense in the great public breast. An Dangerous. oarneB t cry is rising from all quarters for a higher sense of honor in society. The demand is just. It is to be feared that honor is less a living force among us than in any other civilized people. Now the dulness of this feeling is an evil sign in respect to our morality. It indicates that even such of our conduct as does accord with the moral law may not be moral. For " honor is not something beside and above morality, but belongs to it taost intimately. Its field lies between the coarser and more obvious requirements of justice and the self- forgetting impulses of love." * Honor is only morality's "consummate flower." Would we have more of it ? Assuredly we need more. Let us cultivate morality more assiduously, and urge it forward to ripeness. Weakness in moral conviction can never be cured by mere exhortation and appeal. The moral sense must bo trained. Any agency that can aid. in effecting this is beyond price. There are more conspicuous evils which, so far as I can see, are out of the reach of all other remedies than this of which I speak. They are only to be crushed by the * President Woolsey in his address at Harvard College in 1875. Denominational vs. State Colleges. 31 weight of the people's moral conviction uttered against them. I instance the incorporate avarice p r a u ^at so largely controls legislation, and «w t - » makes laws by which the people are de- Conseience " frauded. Yes, even if each lawmaker is a Solon for wisdom and an Aristides for justice, the evil remains. Laws can not be specific; and cases must often arise under the best of laws where adroit corporations, without breaking any fiat written upon statute books, can get the people at a disadvantage and rob them. Where is the remedy? The ballot-box says: "It is not in mc." The Legislature says: "It is not in me." The courts say: " We have heard the fame thereof with our ears, but we possess not the cure." There is no cure but in a toning up of the public con- science. Let the members of corporations know that all the people, empaneled as a jury and sworn upon the Bible by a stern conscience, will try them individually, and bring them in guilty whenever they step over the bounds of equity, and even a, corporation of fiends will be cautious. There is something awfully commanding in the rebuke of <• nation's conscience. Men can not brave it. Devils can not. We saw its power when con- gress wrongly voted to enrich itself at our expense, and when corruption grew fat in the high places of New York City by feeding upon the people's wealth. Here is our security — our only security against such abuses — a better conscience in the popular bosom. Intemperance is another of these dreadful demons that law can not exorcise, but a Herculean conscience can. There are still others, and their name is legion. It is of indescribable consequence to our proper develop- ment as a people-, tk&fc=**e£Kthin£ possible be done to 32 Denominational vs. State Colleges. elevate public morals; and when I reflect upon the commanding position of intelligence among Christian j De soc ; a i forces I have no words to ex- fh All f P ress m y anxiety that all the intelligence in Moralitv oul coun t r y ma y De °f 8Uen a character as to prove an ally to morality. Let light be made the medium of warmth ; let the two fall upon men in blended rays as they come forth from God, the eternal Sun and Source of both. For this saving admix- ture of light and heat there can be no better conductor to the souls of this or of any other nation than sancti- fied collegiate instruction.